On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Forrest Xia wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:23 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > > I'm a little confused by the LICENSE and NOTICE in the source. I've been > > telling people for years that these should apply to what is actually in the > > source, however these appear to be the ones appropriate for the binary > > distros. For instance they point to files in the repository folder which > > only exists in the binary distro. > > That can be debated. And I've seen both styles used. I'm not sure which style > I prefer. Separate source and binary license files may be more accurate, but > they also may be misinterpreted. I do agree that license/notice in jar files > should be source licenses… > > In any event, the current source LICENSE file clearly indicates what applies > to source and binaries. A consumer of the source should be able to easily > sort out what applies/doesn't apply… So, I'm fine with it as is… > Kevan, your vote?
Was waiting for build to finish. Given the US holidays, etc. I'd give this a few more days to gather additional votes… --kevan
